I just ran across a little snippit regarding how long it took to build one of these suckers during the height of the war. It seems the time to built one of these 441-foot long 14,257-ton cargo capacity freighters was one week, with the best time being 4 days and 15 hours from the laying of the keel to launching.

We've gone from that to nation of whiners in 60 years. Unbelievable....

whiners about what? Its safe to say that when people dont support a cause they will complain about it. WWII was supported, highly supported, we all believed in the same thing and when you have that you will find men motivated to work like that. But this war, you wont see any of that now, because 49% of us voted for the guy that was going to get us out of this ;)

It seems the time to built one of these 441-foot long 14,257-ton cargo capacity freighters was one week, with the best time being 4 days and 15 hours from the laying of the keel to launching.


:eek:

Wow. That is impressive to say the least! Hard to imagine, you'd have to put so many guys on the job that they'd be stepping all over each other!

:eek:

Wow. That is impressive to say the least! Hard to imagine, you'd have to put so many guys on the job that they'd be stepping all over each other!

It was something like a million man hours. It would take A TON of people. You think it would be like Keystone Kops or Three Stooges, with people spinning around with boards hitting guys in the head without some major coordination. I think a lot of the ships might have been prefabricated.

...voted for the guy that was going to get us out of this...
http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/images/smilies/rollinglaugh.gifhttp://www.pro-touring.com/forum/images/smilies/bsjerk.gif

wwII wasn't THAT supported - take a read at this:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001447

I just got done reading a book on WWII, with a little article on the "Liberty Ships".

"At the peak of wartime effort, workers were able to construct one ship in 80 hours and 30 minutes (!)

"Components were assembled all over the country. Freight cars carried them to shipyards, where they were stacked in a "filing system" along the ways were hulls were being built. When a hull was ready, cranes lifted complete bulkheads, fuel tanks, decks and superstructures into place."

"The 441-foot ships were built working without letup and at the surprisingly low cost of two million dollars per hull."

"So fast were the shipbuilders that a joke was told of a woman who stepped up with a champagne bottle to christen a new ship. The keel had not been laid.... "What shall I do know??".... "Just start swinging lady!""

http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/images/smilies/rollinglaugh.gifhttp://www.pro-touring.com/forum/images/smilies/bsjerk.gif

Yeah some of us voted for that guy and some even voted for the guy who wouldn't have gotten us into it either.

That was a clear failure of our setup, this guy should have never been in office to begin with. I dont know how people can be so ignorant to his mistakes, you guys make excuses more than the intilligent people "whine"

This isn't the forum for politics :p

Weren't those the ships that were known for breaking in half unexpectedly? I remember seeing something on a history channel "greatest engineering disasters" or something like that.

This isn't the forum for politics :p

Weren't those the ships that were known for breaking in half unexpectedly? I remember seeing something on a history channel "greatest engineering disasters" or something like that.

There have been a few of those. The Liberty ship was basically a WWI design, with a triple expansion steam engine (1800s technology) that were initially built at the beginning of the war because they needed ships and this was a proven design. They were replaced later in the war by Victory ships, which were much updated and larger, with diesel engines or steam turbines, I'm not sure which. I seem to remember something about them having problems with the earlier Liberties in that regard but I'm not certain.

There was a class of Supertankers back in the 1970s I believe where they had serious problems with them breaking up and disappearing . The first one to vanish was the Derbyshire, something like 4 football fields long, just vanished, as in gone. Turns out they were splitting in half just in front of the superstructure at the rear of the ship, and then breaking up in a matter of minutes. Pretty amazing that that could happen so fast with something so large.

According to my reference materials:

The "Liberty Ships" were an adaptation of British tramp steamers. Could travel 17000 miles @ 11 knots, on a load of fuel, using old-fashioned (low tech) steam engines.

Neither pretty or fast, but straight lines and flat planes made her simple and quick to build, and able to carry 10,800 TONS of cargo........

Rosy the riveter to Rosy O'Dumbbell in one generation..............so true!

Can you imagine trying to build war machines today with OSHA, EPA, affirmative racism programs, and such!

Just had to add....

I work in one of the converted buildings that made the Liberty Ships....


The street is called Liberty Ship Way in Sausalito, California. I work at 30 Liberty Ship Way! This is located across from San Francisco in Marin County, the first exit after getting off the Golden Gate Bridge.

I believe the actual building I am in is the steam engine assembly "room".

All of the buildings that made those ships have been retroed to "high-rent" buildings. Nice thing about working "there" is the beach is a one minute walk from my office! That is my other office!

The supporting beams of the building, which are still internally exposed, use the original steel girders and wood support joists.

-stu

People who voice their opposition to a particular issue or or law or political party should not be catagorized as whiners. I'm sick of hearing that term used to intimidate people who excersize their right to free speech. Label a person a whiner so that he'll be put on the defensive, which in turn tends to redirect the discourse away from the issue being debated. It is what it is, a redirection and intimidation ploy that's used to thwart a speaker in an attempt to accomplish the goal of a provocatuer, that is, to steer the speaker away from the subject at hand.

This is not to say there are no whiners. There are lots of them out there. We've seen plenty of examples. But this is a misused and overused term that's often used by someone who lacks the ability to reason with disagreement. I do concur that there are plenty of people out there who do nothing but complain and criticize but offer nothing in the way of a solution. Nothing you do would ever make them happy. But the mere fact that someone opposes your political party or your beliefs does not make that person a "whiner".

What's been overlooked is the fact that this is another in the long line of accomplishments by the greatest generation. This couldn't be done today because everyone wants to be a chief. No one wants to be an indian.

You'd have a ship building company with three thousand executive vice-presidents, several thousand more middle managers, an administrative staff with a budget larger than that of many small countries, countless engineers who contribute little or nothing to the finished product, an unending number of Six Sigma black belts and green belts who continuously change the manufacturing processes without telling anyone or consulting the people who actually do the work, and about six people who actually build ships. American companies have become like an upside down pyramid. This is why you could not pull this off today.

Rosy the riveter to Rosy O'Dumbbell in one generation..............so true!

Can you imagine trying to build war machines today with OSHA, EPA, affirmative racism programs, and such!
So can your wife weld? My daughter can.

I'm not so sure those one week numbers were complete ships launched. From what I've heard on the topic in the past, I think the one week was from laying the keel to launching the hull, with all the superstructure and the stuff that you need to make the ship be usable being installed once the hull is already in the water. Made more room in the manufacturing plant to build more keels.

whiners about what? Its safe to say that when people dont support a cause they will complain about it. WWII was supported, highly supported, we all believed in the same thing and when you have that you will find men motivated to work like that. But this war, you wont see any of that now, because 49% of us voted for the guy that was going to get us out of this ;)

:rolleyes: Mmmmmm, let's travel back in time.......



What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD?




"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html)

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/)

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/)

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm)

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/)

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+t he+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+tech nology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+regio n+and+he+has+made+a+moc)

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+Hussein+has+...+chosen+to+spend+his+ money+on+building+weapons+of+mass+destruction+and+ palaces+for+his+cronies.&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source (http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm)

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html)

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html)

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source (http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/10/2002A07621.html)

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | S (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+t he+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+tech nology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+regio n+and+he+has+made+a+moc)ource (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+t he+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+tech nology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+regio n+and+he+has+made+a+moc)

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source (http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html)